This article continues our series, The Texas Business Court at Work: Lessons from Case Filing to Jury Verdict, by examining one of the most significant aspects of Business Court litigation: summary judgment practice. Drawing on our experience in one of the first cases to reach a jury verdict in the Texas Business Court’s First Division, we highlight several procedural and practical lessons that litigants and practitioners should keep in mind when presenting dispositive motions in this new forum.
Motions Should Be Direct and Precise
In the recent Texas Business Court case in which Shields Legal participated, the parties filed more than ten traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment. Each motion complied with the Business Court’s then-existing 7,500-word limit per motion.[1] Even under that framework, presenting complex legal and factual issues within the allotted word count was a tall task.
The challenge has only increased. Effective October 1, 2026, the Business Court amended its local rules to impose a collective word limit when a party files multiple motions for summary judgment.[2] Instead of 7,500 words per summary judgment motion, parties are only allowed a maximum of 12,000 words collectively.[3]
The practical effect of this change is significant. Under the prior rule, a party filing five different summary judgment motions could use up to 37,500 words. In our team’s experience, even that allowance demanded careful drafting and a sharp focus on the issues most likely to influence the court’s decision. Under the new rule, those same five motions would be limited to a combined 12,000 words, or approximately 2,400 words per motion.
These limits are not merely aspirational. The Business Court requires parties to include a certificate of compliance stating the number of words contained in each motion, and practitioners should expect the court to enforce the limits as written.[4] Parties should be aware of this strict requirement and plan early to seek leave of court to exceed the word limits, which is contemplated by the rules, if they are planning on filing more than two motions for summary judgment.
Appendices Remain a Valuable Advocacy Tool
Although the Business Court no longer requires an appendix with each motion, Shields Legal’s experience suggests that a well-organized appendix remains a valuable tool for both litigants and the court.
Earlier versions of the Business Court’s local rules required each motion, including a motion for summary judgment, to include an appendix.[5] Effective October 1, 2026, that requirement was removed.[6] But the practical benefits of the former rule remain.
Under the prior rule, parties were required to number every page of a filing consecutively so that the document page number corresponded to the PDF page number.[7] In our experience, maintaining that format made the summary judgment record significantly easier to navigate and use. In particular, it allowed counsel to:
- efficiently cite evidence submitted with earlier motions in subsequent briefing;
- direct the court to specific evidence during in-person hearings; and
- quickly locate and evaluate evidence supporting your arguments and your opponent’s arguments.
These advantages become particularly important in cases involving multiple summary judgment motions and a substantial evidentiary record. Even though appendices are no longer required, organizing the evidence so that page references correspond to PDF page numbers can make written and oral advocacy more efficient and precise. For Shields Legal, that organization proved especially valuable during oral argument, when the ability to direct the court quickly to a particular piece of evidence mattered.
Oral Hearings Are a Vital Part of Business Court Practice
Litigants should expect the Business Court to hold in-person hearings. In Shields Legal’s recent case before the Texas Business Court’s First Division, every summary judgment motion was argued at an in-person hearing. Those hearings proved to be an important part of the dispositive-motion process, giving counsel the opportunity not only to advocate for their positions, but also to engage directly with the issues the court viewed as most significant.
Texas’s newly revised summary judgment rule further underscores the importance of oral argument. Effective March 1, 2026, Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure expressly permits both movants and nonmovants to request an oral hearing on a motion for summary judgment.[8] Practitioners should pay close attention to the rule’s procedural requirements: a movant’s request for an oral hearing must appear in the title of the motion, while a nonmovant’s request must appear in the title of the response.[9] Failing to do so may waive the opportunity to request an oral hearing.
In Shields Legal’s experience, the value of these hearings extended beyond the motions being argued. The court’s questions and focus during oral argument provided insight into the legal and factual issues it considered most important. The in-person hearings ultimately provided our team with insights that were beneficial in structuring future motions and arguments in a way that could lead to a higher likelihood of success on those motions. The practical lesson is straightforward: when the opportunity for oral argument is available, practitioners should treat the hearing as an integral part of their summary judgment strategy, not merely as the final step in briefing the motion.
Conclusion
Motions for summary judgment are a valuable tool in Texas Business Court litigation. Our team’s experience underscores that successful summary judgment practice in the Texas Business Court requires more than simply applying familiar Texas procedure in a new forum. Strict word limits demand focused advocacy, a well-organized record makes complex evidence easier to navigate, and oral argument provides an important opportunity to address the issues most significant to the court. Practitioners who account for these considerations early can approach dispositive motion practice more strategically and effectively.
Note: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute or contain legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction regarding your specific situation.
Read The Texas Business Court at Work: Lessons from Case Filing to Jury Verdict — Part 1
[1] BCLR
[2] BCLR 5(a)(i).
[3] Id.
[4] BCLR 5(a)(iii).
[5] BCLR 5(d) (Effective Mar. 1, 2025) (requiring to comply with specific appendix requirements for each motion).
[6] BCLR 5(d) (Effective Oct. 1, 2026) (noting BCLR 5(d) as “Deleted”).
[7] BCLR 5(d) (Effective Mar. 1, 2025) (“Number every page in the filing, including the main document and any appendices, with continuous page numbers, such that the document page number matches the PDF page number).
[8] Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(b)(2)(B) (allowing a movant to request an oral hearing); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(d)(2) (allowing a non-movant to request an oral hearing).
[9] Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(b)(2)(B) (requiring a movant’s request for a hearing be in the title of the motion); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(d)(2) (requiring a non-movant’s request for a hearing be in the title of the response).
